Floyd v. Panthers Football, L.L.C.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedDecember 4, 2008
DocketI.C. No. 563863.
StatusPublished

This text of Floyd v. Panthers Football, L.L.C. (Floyd v. Panthers Football, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Floyd v. Panthers Football, L.L.C., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinions

*********
The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the *Page 2 evidence and upon reconsideration, the Full Commission REVERSES the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as:

STIPULATIONS:
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over this matter.

2. All parties are subject to and bound by the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

3. All parties have been properly designated, and there is no question as to joinder or non-joinder of parties.

4. The Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury on August 13, 2005.

5. An employment relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the Employer-Defendant during some or all of the time period of the previous paragraph.

6. Defendants filed a Form 61 on or about August 31, 2006, which admitted that Employee-Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident to his right thumb while playing professional football on August 13, 2005, but denied that Employee-Plaintiff was disabled and entitled to any indemnity compensation as a result of that injury by accident. Defendants filed a Form 28B on or about February 15, 2006.

7. On September 9, 2005, Employee-Plaintiff was terminated from the Employer-Defendant. On September 12, 2005, Employee-Plaintiff was paid an injury grievance settlement by the Employer-Defendant, in the amount of $97,058.82. That injury grievance settlement *Page 3 reflected payment for eleven weeks of regular season pay, based on a season contract price of $150,000.00. Employee-Plaintiff's contract provided that he would be paid 1/17th of $150,000.00 for each game as he was not a member of the active/inactive roster. Pursuant to the revised NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Defendants are entitled to a reduction of 1.5 weeks of any award to Employee-Plaintiff for each week Employee-Plaintiff received his salary pursuant to the injury grievance settlement. Thus, the Defendants are entitled to a reduction of 16.5 (11 x 1.5) weeks of any compensation awarded to Employee-Plaintiff for permanent partial impairment, temporary total or temporary partial disability.

8. The parties participated in a mediated settlement conference on June 29, 2007, that was unsuccessful. Neill Fuleihan served as the mediator for the parties. Following that unsuccessful mediation the Defendants made payment of the full mediator's fee, in the amount of $600.00, to Neill Fuleihan for his services as the mediator.

***********
STIPULATED EXHIBITS
In accordance with North Carolina Workers' Compensation Rule 409(6), the parties stipulated to each of the following documents:

1. Stipulated Exhibit #1

(a) North Carolina Industrial Commission Forms.

(b) Plaintiff and Defendants discovery responses.

(c) Medical Records of the Employee-Plaintiff.

(d) Carolina Panthers Personnel/Employment/Medical File.

(e) Article LIV of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement.

(f) Plaintiff's wage information from 2006 and 2007.

*Page 4

2. Stipulated Exhibit #2

(a) Videotape of Carolina Panthers vs. Washington Redskins, August 13, 2005.

***********
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED:
1. Plaintiff's contested issues to be tried at the hearing are as follows:

a. Is the Plaintiff-Employee entitled to wage loss benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 97-29, 97-30 and/or benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-31, including medical compensation?

b. What is the average weekly wage of the Plaintiff-Employee?

2. Defendants' contested issues to be tried at the hearing were as follows:

a. Is Plaintiff entitled to any additional compensation as a result of the August 13, 2005, injury by accident?

b. Should Plaintiff's evaluation of his permanent partial impairment by Dr. Wallace Andrew on August 2, 2007, be considered as evidence given that Plaintiff did not undergo an initial evaluation for determination of his *Page 5 permanent partial impairment by a treating physician prior to undergoing a second opinion evaluation?

c. Should Defendants have to pay for the evaluation by Dr. Wallace Andrew given that Plaintiff did not seek preauthorization for the appointment, did not advise Defendants of the appointment prior to it taking place, and Plaintiff did not undergo an initial evaluation for determination of his permanent partial impairment by a treating physician prior to undergoing a second opinion evaluation?

d. Should Plaintiff be made to come to Charlotte, North Carolina for an evaluation with Dr. Boatright, the physician who performed his surgery, at his own expense in order to be evaluated for an assessment of his permanent partial impairment rating, given that he did not comply with N.C. Gen Stat. § 97-27 when he presented for his evaluation with Dr. Andrew and did not allow the Defendants the right to have present at that evaluation a duly qualified physician of their choice?

e. What is Plaintiff's permanent partial impairment?

f. Are Defendants entitled to a credit for Plaintiff's portion of the mediator's fee paid by the Defendants following the unsuccessful mediation?

g. What is Plaintiff's average weekly wage?

***********
Based upon the post-hearing stipulations, the competent evidence of record and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission enters the following additional:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Plaintiff is currently 29 years of age. He and his wife, Monique Floyd, have been married for over five years and currently reside in Bartow, Florida. Mrs. Floyd is a graduate of Florida State University.

2. The Plaintiff played football at Bartow High School from 1993-1997. Based on his football skills and ability in high school, he received a football scholarship to the University of Indiana and graduated in December 2001. *Page 6

3. The Plaintiff played various positions during his college football career, including: defensive back, wide receiver, running back and defensive end.

4. The Plaintiff won the Hoosier Strength and Conditioning Challenge both in 1998 and 2001. This is an award presented to an athlete who is "pound for pound the strongest" and the best conditioned athlete on the field. In 2001, Plaintiff won the Ted Verlihay Award, given annually to the player that demonstrates the best mental attitude and loyalty to the Hoosier football program.

5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Britt v. Gator Wood, Inc.
648 S.E.2d 917 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Hendricks v. Hill Realty Group, Inc.
509 S.E.2d 801 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
State v. Simpson
357 S.E.2d 332 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Gupton v. Builders Transport
357 S.E.2d 674 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Floyd v. Panthers Football, L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-panthers-football-llc-ncworkcompcom-2008.